Ted Elliott's recent Op-Ed about the Clear Lake hitch was full of misinformation, fear-mongering about the potential impacts of providing Endangered Species Act protections for this imperiled fish, and confusion about the role of federal and state wildlife agencies in recovering our native fish and wildlife ("Protection, restoration should be determined by local government" Sept. 1).

Clear Lake hitch have long been an important part of the natural and cultural heritage of Clear Lake. These fish once spawned in nearly every tributary of the lake, likely numbering in the millions, and were a vital part of the Clear Lake ecosystem. Their abundant numbers provided food for birds, fish, other wildlife and native people. Now hitch spawn regularly in only two streams. There are now just a few thousand of them left and those that survive remain acutely vulnerable to water diversion and pumping, drought, invasive species and pollutants.

If you care about water quality, natural resources, cultural heritage or tourism, there are myriad reasons to help protect and recover this once plentiful fish and restore the Clear Lake ecosystem they depend on.

Elliot's criticism relies on non-issues such as whether the Clear Lake hitch is a valid subspecies. It seems clear he didn't read the listing petition that he claims to be so "disturbed" by.

To set the record straight, the California Department of Fish and Game, California native fish expert Peter Moyle and numerous fisheries biologists who have evaluated hitch, tested their DNA or published peer-reviewed reports in environmental journals agree that the Clear Lake hitch is a valid subspecies and a distinct population. It is found only in Clear Lake and its tributaries; Clear Lake hitch do not occur in the Russian River drainage.

Further, Elliot does not appear to have expertise with fish or aquatic ecology (in fact, his employer was a U.S. Department of Agriculture program best known for killing native wildlife on behalf of agricultural interests). His characterization of endangered species protections as a "barrier to growth" or "layer of bureaucracy" reveals his utter disinterest in a frank discussion of why this formerly abundant species is in trouble and what we can reasonably do to reverse its decline.

It's no surprise that agricultural interests that have enjoyed unfettered ability to divert water, block streams, remove native vegetation and apply pesticides in the Clear Lake basin are concerned about changes in the regulatory climate if protections are put in place for the hitch. But it there's going to be a debate, it should be based on facts about the cause of the hitch's decline and what reasonable solutions we have at hand, not misinformation and false accusations.

Elliot misstates existing water rights policies and overstates the potential effects of an endangered listing on farming practices and water rights. There are simply no examples in California where water rights have been severely curtailed or eliminated due to endangered fish, including salmon or steelhead. There are a number of relatively painless ways water users can change operations to benefit hitch streams, such as water conservation and efficiency, changing season of diversion, and water storage and strategic release, that would have no impact on water rights.

Elliot also incorrectly states that we have advocated eliminating largemouth bass and other introduced game fish in the lake. Our petition thoroughly discusses the impacts the 17 species of invasive fish introduced into Clear Lake have had on native fish. We have lost seven native fish species (including one endemic fish) from Clear Lake and only five other native fish species beside the hitch remain. Our petition suggests some potential management approaches such as investigating the impact of largemouth bass predation on the hitch population and developing (with input from bass fishers) an action plan to reduce bass predation. We have not advocated any actions until the issues are studied, and no one at this point has suggested eliminating any fish.

The petitions we submitted to federal and state agencies to protect the hitch were based on the best available scientific information. Sources included the state departments of Fish and Wildlife and of Pesticide Regulation, studies by Clear Lake tribes, surveys by the local Chi Council in hitch spawning streams, and surveys and literature by numerous fisheries biologists. That's hardly "inadequate information," as Elliot asserts. State biologists have known since at least the 1980s that the lake's hitch runs were in trouble when the Department of Fish and Game published "Fish Species of Special Concern in California." Since then, the evidence of the hitch's decline has only become more robust ? and troubling. If we wait and do nothing, as Elliot seems to suggest, there would be no surviving hitch to protect by the time there was enough information to convince him.

The one point we agree with Elliot on is that local government should lead the way in protecting endangered wildlife. Unfortunately, in the case of the hitch, as with hundreds of other declining species around the country, that has not happened. That's why we have the Endangered Species Act. It's a safety net for imperiled wildlife and plants, a critically important triage emergency program to protect the remaining individuals, stem the causes of decline, protect essential habitats and initiate projects to recover the populations of species on the edge of extinction.

Clear Lake hitch are point of pride and a cultural component for residents of Clear Lake, but they are also a public trust resource for all Californians and all Americans. That is why state and federal protections and recovery efforts are important and why everyone will have a say during the public process if the wildlife agencies determine an endangered or threatened listing should be proposed. Everyone take a deep breath ? there will be a thorough public review and comment period if any listing is proposed.

It will take all of us, including local government, tribes, local residents, state and federal agencies, biologists, conservation groups and agricultural interests to keep this species around for future generations and begin to repair and restore the Clear Lake ecosystem. Investments we make in recovery measures for hitch, such as removing or retrofitting barriers to fish migration, improving instream water flows, restoring fish to former spawning streams, and reducing predation by invasive fish near the mouths of spawning streams will also benefit many other native wildlife species in the Clear Lake basin, and could very well improve water quality, promote tourism, renew cultural identity and help the local economy.

Learn more about the Clear Lake hitch listing petitions.

Jeff Miller is a conservation advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity.